A discussion on troop porking

[ColKLink]

I got three words for a troop porker,......two sixty two:cool:

[Bruv119]

aren't those numbers   Bo  ....  

Each side can do it so what goes around comes around....




Bruv
~S~

[fuzeman]

How about this, when an enemy approaches a field all the little troopers in the barracks come running out so you actually have to straff each individual troop to take the barracks down at a particular field. When the attacker is gone all the little troopers, or at least the ones who have not been killed, go back into the barracks. Have  twenty or thirty little troopers at a field so you have to straff all of them to completely take down that base's ability to launch troops.

[SlapShot]

They got their way when they whined & won about gas porking.

Another clueless one that feels the need to perpetuate that urban myth.

The fuel "porking" remedy was instituted due to the fact that when AH II was activated, HT and crew decided that the fuel burn multiplier needed to be upped to 2.0 ... with that, if fuel was allowed to be porked to 25%, that would have eliminated a vast amount of the plane set from being used (on a consistent basis).

It had nothing to do with anybody whining.

See this thread for some edumacation ... http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803&highlight=fuel+burn

Originally posted by GScholz
I understand the concept of using a 2x burn rate to compensate for the reduced distances compared to real life. However the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical, so the short-legged fighters that need altitude to fight with are at an unfair disadvantage IMHO.

Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude.  Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel.  With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power.  If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.

People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.

Originally posted by Pyro
The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel.  Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes.  We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.

Originally posted by Pyro
I wouldn't mind a restriction on DTs although I think that's a perceived problem more than a real one.  

I won't argue about us not using historical distances in the MA.  If you don't already understand why that's done, I doubt I can convince you.  

It's a mistake to say I want to handicap long range planes.  The long range planes are beneficiaries of this, relatively speaking.  The planes are going to be short, medium, or long ranged according to what trade-offs the designer made.  All I'm doing is redefining what short, medium, and long range is in the game.

Originally posted by Edbert
I agree with you completely there Batz (although I do still log 99% of my time in the MA), the fuel porking thing is WAAAAY outta hand. What does the burn rate matter if all bases within 3 sectors of your enemy are down to 25%? Even the Pony cannot up, fight, and hope to RTB with that crazyness. Some times the pork-potatos don;t seem to out in too much force, other times one must decide to switch countries or log off it is so bad.

Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?

Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base.  No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.

[JTs]

have all the little troopers run to thier own aaa guns and defend themselfs

[Blammo]

Originally posted by SlapShot
They got their way when they whined & won about gas porking.

Another clueless one that feels the need to perpetuate that urban myth.

The fuel "porking" remedy was instituted due to the fact that when AH II was activated, HT and crew decided that the fuel burn multiplier needed to be upped to 2.0 ... with that, if fuel was allowed to be porked to 25%, that would have eliminated a vast amount of the plane set from being used (on a consistent basis).

It had nothing to do with anybody whining.

HIJACK ALERT

The how about we ask them to lower the fuel burn multiplier to 1.5 (or, heaven forbid, 1) and allow fuel to be porked back down.  Then maybe people will look to pork things other than the troops.  Right now, I rarely even bother to pork fuel because it makes very little, if any, difference.  Might as well remove the fuel dumps from the fields complete.

We now return control of this thread to the general populace

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by crowMAW
The best argument for the current system is as a hoard defense.  When 25-30 ponies and JugNs come in at 20k+ to a lightly defended base and take down the VH and all FHs, there is not much other way to slow the hoard down other than goon hunters and troop porkers.

If you want to make it more challenging for the hoard, then harden the hangers so that only bombers can take them out.  Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy.  That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense.

Perhaps zones could have a 'commander' of sorts, based on rank?.. dunno, but said HMFIC could relocate resources / assets, even rearrange how particular bases are configured...ie placing troop tents off the base proper so 'porkers' would have to look, and look hard.

Moving troops should involve risk and time, of course, personally I think it'd be ok to go train / barge / convoy hunting for troop / supply transports. It's not unherd of for bases to be abandon with all assets moved or to relocate valuble assets at risk. At the first sign of an approaching 'horde', get the troops on a  convoy / barge / train and get em to safety... if said train get pwned, so be it.

How many grunts are going to just sit in their hooch knowing they are under attack?, at the very least they'd run like their sphincters were on fire and or burro into the Earth... but in this 'war' they sit, do nothing and wait to be slaughtered.

It's easy to eliminate assets when all bases are rubber stamped, assets are always in the same places, all the time with zero variation...  allow some changes to that 'game' aspect to, at the minimum, get some variety.

[SlapShot]

Sorry ... Blammo ... not an attempt at high-jacking ... but rather to try and clue the clueless who feel the need to feed urban myths.

With that ... I forsee absolutly no change to the troop situation (or destroying thereof). Troops, or the lack thereof, has no bearing on limiting the ability of someone to get airtime/groundtime ... and that is what this game is all about. If you not in the air or on the ground doing something ... then AH is in trouble ... troops are inconsequential in that formula.

[mojo55]

1) You can't prevent barracks from being destroyed, even if a porker announced his/her intentions on ch. 200.
2) You can't kill the porker unless he hangs around to fight.
3) HT created this world in six days, and on the seventh day he said "let us pork" . Amen

[Blammo]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Sorry ... Blammo ... not an attempt at high-jacking ... but rather to try and clue the clueless who feel the need to feed urban myths.

Sorry, Slap...I was not trying to imply you were hijacking, but rather that I was because I diverged away from the primary subject.

[Elyeh]

If you want to make it more challenging for the hoard, then harden the hangers so that only bombers can take them out.  Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy.  That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense.


I agree:aok

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
placing troop tents off the base proper so 'porkers' would have to look, and look hard.

Interesting, like a spawn off base. Some random area. Down side would be no manned anti aircraft...for what little time it lasts. If you did place a anti air platform with the troops somebody wouldn't turn tracers off and guide the enemy aircraft right to the troops.

[Gato]

If this is a hijack, I'm sorry that is not my intention.  There seems to be two frames of mind in the game.  Furballer and tool shedder.  This is a combat war sim.  With that said, the object of war is to win.  You win if you take bases from the opponent.  The only real reason to furball in a war is to kill the enemy so they can not fight you.  This is not the case we have in AHII.  When you die, you just go back up again.  When a supply is down on a base, a resupply is needed.  That happens by standard means and by individuals. (I happen to be one of them)  Porking factories slows this process down.

I agree, the setup now makes it too easy to kill the troops on any given base.  The idea of moving the troops would create more problems than it is worth.  I understand why all the bases are laid out the same, PROGRAMMING, but that is the problem.  IF the bases had a variation to the placement of troops, ords., etc, it would make finding them a bit more of a challenge and more interesting too.  Also, if there were AA next to the troops it would make it even more of a challenge.  Cannon fire is an effective tool and should be enough!  But a variation to the palcement and number per base is what is needed.  Even to the point of having some placed off the base proper, close to the town.

I keep hearing "This is a game, not real life".  If that is what you really feel and think, then don't complain about the planes not meeting specs!

I like to win, though my score doesn't show me to be a great pilot.  There are many times I will spend hours running resupply to bases.  I'm not saying this is my favorite thing to do, but without supplies.....

As for needing more than one goon to take a base, why not have them run in formation?  With 10 in each plane and needing 15 to take the base.

This is all IMHO!

[fuzeman]

How about a score catagory , lets say PRK, that activates when the last thing you killed before getting killed was a Barracks.
If your PRK score gets to 3 the only rides available to you will be the M-3 or the C-47






{ or how about I stop posting     }

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Gato
If this is a hijack, I'm sorry that is not my intention.  There seems to be two frames of mind in the game.  Furballer and tool shedder.  This is a combat war sim.  With that said, the object of war is to win.  You win if you take bases from the opponent.  The only real reason to furball in a war is to kill the enemy so they can not fight you.  This is not the case we have in AHII.  When you die, you just go back up again.  When a supply is down on a base, a resupply is needed.  That happens by standard means and by individuals. (I happen to be one of them)  Porking factories slows this process down.

I agree, the setup now makes it too easy to kill the troops on any given base.  The idea of moving the troops would create more problems than it is worth.  I understand why all the bases are laid out the same, PROGRAMMING, but that is the problem.  IF the bases had a variation to the placement of troops, ords., etc, it would make finding them a bit more of a challenge and more interesting too.  Also, if there were AA next to the troops it would make it even more of a challenge.  Cannon fire is an effective tool and should be enough!  But a variation to the palcement and number per base is what is needed.  Even to the point of having some placed off the base proper, close to the town.

I keep hearing "This is a game, not real life".  If that is what you really feel and think, then don't complain about the planes not meeting specs!

I like to win, though my score doesn't show me to be a great pilot.  There are many times I will spend hours running resupply to bases.  I'm not saying this is my favorite thing to do, but without supplies.....

As for needing more than one goon to take a base, why not have them run in formation?  With 10 in each plane and needing 15 to take the base.

This is all IMHO!

Here is what HT's take is ... I will bold the important parts so you won't miss them ...

Originally posted by hitech
Working together is not penalized. We are not trying to implement a system where consentrating your forces is hampered.

But it realy is a basic game concepts that all sides have the same number of players. If you don't belive that concept, please sight one case where a game is not designed with that in mind. And please do not tell me AH is war, because it is not, it is a War game. And games are ment to be fun and fair. While war is not ment to be either fair or fun.

With equal sides, doing what it takes to win , is what game play is. In AH there are multiple levels of winning, makeing a capture,just shooting down more people than shot you down, ending the war. All are items of game play in AH.

Having more on your team gives your side an unfair advantage to all other sides. All items of game play are effected by that imbalance. And there realy is nothing that the sides with less numbers can do about it. They can not swith countries to even the numbers, if they move to the country with more numbers it just makes everything worse. They could make a treaty, but that only works in a defensive mode.

Equal sides is such a basic consept that over the life of AH the sides have maintained a fairly equal number, the resone is realy simple, people have more fun when the sides are equal.

So now the question becomes not IF the sides should be equal,
but how to accomplish that equality with least impact to the social apspect of the game.


HiTech

... with that ... winning the WAR is not his only objective in creating and maintaining the game.